nico, I'm afraid the Naito letter doesn't answer the question. What I said was,
"Perhaps Mr. Naito would care to tell us why he refuses to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement".

I actually disagree. I think the bigger question is WHY does the Friends NOT want this discussed in public and only in private? Also why do the Friends think they should be involved in all discussons? It sounds like the Friends have too big of an ego.....

If the Friends are actually our friends (of the Hood River Residents, and the Columbia Gorge), then I think more transparancy is in order.

Sorry Phazle, I don't think you will get much support on this one. AND I was/am against the cable park.

If I understand this matter correctly, it's important that you all understand that the "negotiations" The Friends attorney wishes to remain confidential are NOT about waterfront plans /designs/cable park or not..., but rather about dropping their Land Use Board fo Appeals suit(s) which Naito, and The Babitz/Davies Plan calls for in order to drop the cable-park application.

The intent to file these suits is on behalf of The Friends, so that is why they are involved. This matter is singularly between Naito and The Friends, not "The Public."

These types of negotiations (for two parties to come to an agreement in order to not proceed via the legal system) are customary and almost always conducted privately between the parties at odds.

The legal systems authorities often encourages parties at odds to privatley come to agreements in order to limit or eliminate litigation altogether.

I would encourage Naito Developement to agree to private negotiations over The Friends LUBA filings and get on with building their Hotel within the regulatory borders of all land use and environmental regulations._________________CU Sailin'

The Friends tactic is just like what DennisWhite /Audobon Society used in confronting the energy overlay in Klickitat Co. to extract a cash settlement to go away, its a tried and true non-profit,enviromental business model

More bullshit from the friends. Naito's played EVERYTHING above the table, and transparently. Friends have been trying back-room secret dealings from the start under the direction of Mr. Foster.

The Friends are not a "public" interest group. They represent the interest and wishes of a few strong-willed individuals with a lot of time on their hands. Did they get some support from the community? By lying out-right and distorting the truth, yes.

Not much activity in the basin the last couple weeks. Bet kiteboarders and wakeboarders would have been riding a cable, tho.___________________________________________________________
FORMERLY of www.windsurfingmag.com

If I understand this matter correctly, it's important that you all understand that the "negotiations" The Friends attorney wishes to remain confidential are NOT about waterfront plans /designs/cable park or not..., but rather about dropping their Land Use Board fo Appeals suit(s) which Naito, and The Babitz/Davies Plan calls for in order to drop the cable-park application.

@CUSailin: Actually Foster made it very clear at the meeting that the issues they wanted to negotiate in private were in fact about the plans, design and regulations in regard to the hotel project. He specifically pointed out one example when pressed by the port and that being the setback distance of the commercial building from the water. Do only the Friends deserve to benefit from and control such negotiations? Did the public give them that power/right?

The Friends are a (self appointed) non-profit public interest group. The ONLY reason to keep conversations like these confidential is to discuss a monetary settlement to make their lawsuits go away. Let's please not fool our selves here.

I urge you to at least step back for a second and see it for what it is.

A potential pay-day for what appears to be un-employable attorney with strong ties to the militant environmentalists, who saw an easy way to capitalize on a well-meaning developer's intent to help our community while strengthening their in-state, family-owned business? Listen, I'm sure Naito Development does big numbers in terms of annual revenue, compared to what many of us might take home in a year. Assuming that makes them evil 1%'ers is a bit of a stretch.

You know what: the friends have been right all along - they've been getting played by the man. They just didn't realize Brent Foster was the man. And Hood River is the loser.___________________________________________________________
FORMERLY of www.windsurfingmag.com

If I understand this matter correctly, it's important that you all understand that the "negotiations" The Friends attorney wishes to remain confidential are NOT about waterfront plans /designs/cable park or not..., but rather about dropping their Land Use Board fo Appeals suit(s) which Naito, and The Babitz/Davies Plan calls for in order to drop the cable-park application.

The intent to file these suits is on behalf of The Friends, so that is why they are involved. This matter is singularly between Naito and The Friends, not "The Public."

These types of negotiations (for two parties to come to an agreement in order to not proceed via the legal system) are customary and almost always conducted privately between the parties at odds.

Let me see if I understand it correctly. The "Friends" fight to keep the cable park from being built for enviromental issues (Makes me happy, I didn't want it in the first place). So as I see it "they won". BUT now they want "negotiations" with Naito about the hotel being built. I'm sorry, but why can't they just be happy with what they accomplished and agree to release the lawsuit so the hotel can be built? After all the hotel isn't being built in the river, and it's hard to say Hood River couldn't use another one. PLUS a hotel, new pathway, and improved access would be a boost to the area and most likely could be instramental in more growth.

Oh yeah, I forgot. NOW they want money. And they want their negotiations behind closed doors. Hmmm, sounds a lot like blackmail to me. Which I believe is illegal in most states. But I guess in the business world we just call it "negotiations".

I really hate to say this, but I have to agree with Josh with this one (minus his snipes at what kiteboarders might or might not be doing in the basin)...

Wasn't mean as a snipe - I just wanted to point out that there hasn't been much activity in the basin the last couple weeks. A cable park would probably have increased that activity. Same thing I've been saying all along.___________________________________________________________
FORMERLY of www.windsurfingmag.com

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum